Comments

What's all this blather about discussion about the status of Jerusalem? No, no, and NO! Israel should entirely refuse to have any discussions pertaining to Jerusalem and refuse to provide embassy space for foreign governments unless it's in Jerusalem. High time the Israelis got their balls back and stopped apologizing for themselves and a unified Jerusalem.

BTW, Bibi, use smart bombs that will sniff out the blood on the lintels of Christian homes and churches in Egypt.As for Netanyahu, good for him. Obama deserved a full face smackdown! He deserved to be told of the illusory nature of his hope for peace with Israel making all the concessions whilst the savage hordes yield nothing besides words. You can't have agreements with a people whose "holy" book tells them it's okay to lie to get what they want.

Bibi ought to send a warning shot across the MB's bow: you scrap the agreement between Israel and Egypt, the Sinai reverts to us and we'll bomb you back to the stone age to defend it—that's where you like to live anyway.

Barak Obama looked like an indignant child, with his hand on his chin and his squint eyed glare at Netanyahu.

What a joke all the moronic journos and their insulted feelings, including Neil Cavuto, "Our President is belittled". Netanyahu is fighting for the right of a Biblical race to homestead on a thousands of years historical settlement and all these idiots can do is critique this decision like the conception of the state happened when Obama was elected.

MossyMo, you're wrong. Cyrus Vance wrote in his biography that Jimmie Carter had plans to dismantle the Jewish state had he been re-elected. FDR may have turned his back on the European Jews that were suffering under the Nazis, and refused them entry to the U.S., but unlike Carter, FDR did not go out of his way to pander to the Arabs, which Carter continues to do to this day.

Embracing the pre-'67 borders of Israel as a condition precedent to moving forward in the Middle Eastern peace talks, as was articulated by President Obama in his Middle East speech, may ultimately be viewed as a major foreign policy blunder by the Obama Administration. Only time can tell that.

Hopefully, the Administration will quickly gauge the response and find a way to walk this back in order to try another way to get the talks back on track. If they don't, this could become an intractable obstacle to negotiations.

Even in the near term, it it is hard to imagine how this could have been seen as providing a viable basis for spurring the inertia that had developed over the talks, or how it could jog a renewal track in the negotiations.

And attempting to jam it to Bibi just as he was visiting was really bad form.

Maybe Obama felt that the operation against Osama Bin Laden somehow required him to take some concrete action to smooth over Muslim sensibilities, and this was just the first political opening to present itself? Who knows?

I don't think so, however, because given his considered reliance on Samantha Power, this must have been something he has wanted to do for a while.

But even given that, it really is hard to imagine how President Obama trapped himself in this manner, given news coverage suggesting that there was vigorous opposition by many within the White House to the inclusion of that non-starter in his speech.

One of the first appointments that Obama made at the start of his Administration was George Mitchell as the Middle Eastern envoy. Mitchell suddenly resigned recently, and his resignation took effect today.

Was he pressured by the President to accept that shift in US policy as a fait accompli, a condition upon which future negotiations would have to be based, and chose to leave rather than be cast into an impossible negotiating stance?

And what will Hillary do now? It is hard to imagine she favored this during the internal debate that took place.

I have more and more admiration for PM Ben Netanyahu whenever I hear him, see him. He is a leader. He has fought for his country, has proven his intellectual capabilities, knows history (especially the history of his people), and is unapologetically standing strong for his nation, and his people.

He was AWESOME!!! Bringing up the refugee issue – that there were a number of Jewish refugees who had to flee Arab lands and were ABSORBED "by small Israel", and then contrast it with the inability of the "vast Arab lands" to do the same to Palestinians was PRICELESS!

There are no doubt many who have never heard that Jews were thrown out of Arab countries and massacred over the establishment of Israel, and yet the young, tiny country took them in and prospered! These rubes in the WH administration don't know the real history of the Middle East. They know what the leftist/Marxist/dhimmis have told them.

And, to @Trochilus – I don't agree with you about Hillary. If you listen to her speeches (which have gotten NO coverage by the MSM, who have frozen her out unless she makes a gaffe), she is very anti-Israel, and supports Bill's old policy which roughly resembles Obama's ME speech. She may not have wanted the lines in the speech, but she agrees with it 100%. A good read on the US policy on Israel since 1948 (h/t Mark Levin): Dr. Gold on Israel . It is long, but excellent.

The good news is that Obama has blown this "peace" process to smithereens before it even started.

This is good news for Israel, and it ought to be good news for Democrats. Their man is not cut out to play on the world stage, and the sooner this thing is over the sooner they can pretend it never happened.

Obama has no ability to draft practical plans through which he can accomplish any of his objectives. He certainly has ideas about what he wants to accomplish, however, he has no logical or methodical plan of action to accomplish anything. He’s just wingin’ it and it’s clear because nothing he does dovetails with anything else he does. In addition, he has alienated too many people he will need to successfully accomplish anything. Foreign policy gains are accomplished in concert with key partners. Obama is too arrogant to believe he must sit down and meet with people in order to bring ideas to fruition.

Obama has thus made it very clear that he is totally incompetent. In the long run, Obama will have accomplished NOTHING.

In his recent speech with respect to peace in Israel, he has once again followed the exact same (failed) top down approach which is devoid of any type of input or feedback from others, totally disorganized, and based upon his fantasy about how the world should be. His ideas will thus never materialize into any type of lasting form.

Obama will never amount to anything but a four year waste of everyone’s time and an unbelievable detriment to our nation and our economy.

"Daniels is right that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has nothing to do with the Arab Spring. But he failed to note how Obama had tilted the diplomatic playing toward the Palestinians or the significance of the 1967 lines for efforts to re-partition Jerusalem (a point that Pawlenty highlighted). Nor did notice, as Bachmann and Romney did, the fact that this was clearly intended as an insult to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who arrives in the United States today for a visit.

While Politico’s Ben Smith approvingly notes the bipartisan tone that Daniels seems to be adopting, it is somewhat unusual these days for someone who is thinking of running for president to fail to take an opportunity to demonstrate his support for Israel and to criticize the incumbent for taking a swipe at the Jewish state.

One obvious conclusion to be drawn from this is that he really is a disciple of Indiana Senator Richard Lugar, one of the leading foreign policy “realists” in Washington, who has always been cool to Israel. Daniels was an aide to Lugar in his youth and while that wouldn’t necessarily mean that he had adopted the senator’s philosophy on all things, it is not an insignificant fact.

Daniels has always been something of a cipher on foreign policy. As for his support for Israel, the sum total of proof provided by his friends of his affection for the Jewish state was one speech given at an ADL dinner. On the other side of the ledger, there was his recent appearance at a dinner given by the Arab-American Institute, a left-leaning anti-Israel group that honored him because the Indiana governor’s grandparents came from Syria. While his heritage means nothing in this discussion, his reaction to the president’s speech does tell us he doesn’t appear to have strong feelings about American support for the Jewish State."

So using Obama's logic is he going to give back Texas to Mexico??? How about New Mexico and Arizona? The entire Southwest? Hey, should we give Cuba back to Spain? How about Puerto Rico? Philippines? The Virgin Islands? Guam? Maybe we need to give back the Louisiana Purchase to Spain as well since France took it from them? Heck, everybody in the US leave your homes, you are illegal settlers, Obama has declared all the land to be given back to the Indian tribes. Hawaii goes back to the Hawaiians. So that leaves us with Alaska…wait a minute, we bought that from the Russians who took that land from the Eskimos. So what does that leave us with???? Manhattan, the only place we bought from the original inhabitants.

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Announcement

ThirdWindow

Newsletter

Morning Insurrection

Get the latest from Legal Insurrection each morning plus exclusive Author Quick Hits!